take this with a MASSIVE grain of salt, as i'm no expert, am not going through this personally, and have only our consults with drs. schwartz and milller at house and dr. friedman at keck to go on, but based on what they've told me with respect to my son's tumor (twice the size of yours) and why they aren't recommending retro for it:
the post op headaches you hear about seem to be experienced most often by patients who've had retro (though note, with tumors under 1cm).
further,
translab seems to offer the best opportunity for total removal while protecting the facial nerve.
they also said that retro only offered a small percentage of hope for hearing preservation. with translab it's a given you'll lose it; with retro, there's a chance of keeping it, but not necessarily a huge one.
obviously our choice, for us, was clear.
that said, they DID all three tell me that retro would be more of an option for him if his tumor were smaller, like yours, and if he had more usable hearing than he does (he has about 30%); his lack of significant usable hearing makes the benefits of retro not worth the potential costs (leaving tumor behind, significant post-op headaches). so we didn't hesitate to go with translab (his is also tomorrow, btw).
i can kind of see why your surgeons are telling you you can go either way, in light of your existing hearing and the size of your tumor, but i'd be hesitant to change the game plan at the 11th hour, unless you're already well researched on their experience with both types, and their outcomes, especially if your surgeon feels retro is the best approach.
what is your gut telling you, though?
